by Terry Defoe 

Terry Defoe was educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. He has been interested in the science / faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey took him from young earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective. Details at www.evolvingcertainties.com. In 2018, two years after he retired, he published Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science, which received endorsements from scientists affiliated with the BioLogos Association, including a Foreword from its first president, biologist Darrel Falk of Point Loma University, as well as scientists holding membership in the American Scientific Affiliation, a group Defoe joined in 2019.

Introduction

Hermeneutics is a technical term for the theory and methodology of interpreting texts. It seeks an accurate interpretation of materials, as well as analyzing the process of understanding itself. The word is derived from a Greek word meaning “to interpret.” It is often linked to Hermes, the Greek messenger god, tasked with interpreting messages from the gods and passing them along to humans. Hermeneutics studies the role preconceptions and contexts play in understanding. It investigates ways to bridge thegap between the author’s original intent and the reader’s understanding. When it comes to understanding the Scriptures, “it’s all about hermeneutics.” And when it comes to hermeneutics, it’s all about context.

The Hermeneutical Question

Biblical hermeneutics begins with a simple question: “Did God say that?” An even more important question — a specifically hermeneutical question — follows: “Did I hear God correctly?” We modern Christians are certainly not the first to hear these words. Our goal is to hear them as the original audience did — a formidable task given differencesin culture, language and the vast span of time separating us from them. Understandingthe scriptures requires a thorough knowledge of ancient semitic culture. Our world is very different from theirs. This is Walton and Longman’s summary of the issuesinvolved:

The Scriptures were not communicated in our language – not addressed to our culture – do not anticipate questions about the world and its operations that stem from our modern situation and issues. . . . If we read modern ideas into the text, we skirt the authority of the text and in effect are compromising it. The result would be toarrogate authority to ourselves and our ideas. The text cannot mean what it never meant. What the text says may converge with modern science, but the text does not make authoritative claims pertaining to modern science.

On the other hand, our essential humanity has not changed. All of us, throughout the vast expanse of time, are sinners in need of grace. And our broken relationship withGod must be restored through Christ.

As a Lutheran pastor ordained in 1982, at the age of 32, my intellectual journey has taken me from one hermeneutical paradigm to another. When I was in my 20’s, after sometime away from the faith, I joined an evangelical church. Young-earth creationism (YEC) was baked into the package and I wasn’t given the possibility of opting out. Ihave since learned that despite outward appearances, young-earth creationism is notprimarily about science. It’s about defending a proprietary hermeneutic which I was expected to adopt.

That hermeneutics was based, I was assured, “… on what the Bible said.” I was clearly warned that any other view, especially an evolutionary perspective, would lead medown a slippery slope to unbelief. I began to read up on the subject and discovered a huge literature discussing this topic. My study began, accompanied by a few guiltpangs and the feeling that I had somehow betrayed my trust in God’s word. Church workers and pastors who care about integrity are fully aware of the fact that Godholds them to a higher standard in their interpretation of the Word. They know that getting it wrong has serious consequences.

Literalism

In much of evangelicalism, a literalistic reading of the scriptures is encouraged. But literalism is not the best tool in the hermeneutical toolkit. Literalism is unaware of, or dismissive of, the context of the words. Consider the following thought experiment:

• You are blindfolded and are led into the university library stacks.
• You are told to reach out and pull a book off the shelf — any book will do.
• It turns out that the book you chose at random was an advanced physics text. If you do not have the requisite background, “just reading the words off the page” will not yield the level of understanding you seek.

Pre-Scientific

Like police officers investigating a serious incident, interpreters of the scripturesdo their best to piece together a realistic portrait of the way things were in ancientIsrael, cognizant of the fact that enduring theological truths are often embedded in a pre-scientific framework. Scripture is pre-scientific not anti-scientific. The “science” in ancient Israel was the best science of the day. It wasn’t wrong, just different. Scripture’s descriptions of the natural realm are phenomenological — common sense observations. Scripture’s authors lacked the tools and technology which would enable them to describe nature scientifically. Ancient Israel was an oral not written culture. Trade routes distributed ideas as well as merchandise. A blending of thematerial and supernatural was normal for people back then.

Ancient Near East

Accurate hermeneutics recognizes the influence that neighboring nations had on Israel. There is no doubt that neighboring nations like Babylon and Egypt (commonly referred to as the Ancient Near East) influenced ancient Israel. We should not be surprised to hear that the Genesis creation accounts were critical of Babylonian creation mythology. In the Babylonian account, astronomical entities were divinities with oppressive power over humanity. In Genesis, on the other hand, the author makes it clear that the heavenly bodies are inanimate entities serving humanity.

Cosmology

Accurate hermeneutics requires knowledge of Israel’s cosmology. Water is a prominent factor. Above the earth is the firmament — the Hebrew word (raqia) refers to metal pounded flat — metal robust enough to support God’s footsteps. It was commonly believed that there were waters both above and below the firmament. At the time of the Noahic flood, the waters above were released and inundated the earth. Below the earth was the shadowy realm of the dead called “sheol.” The ancient Israelites and a succession of others through history, up to the time of Martin Luther, understood the stars to be globes of fire attached to the underside of the firmament. It was believed that a strong wind could disconnect them from the firmament and cause them to fall to the earth.

Historicity

Many Bible narratives contain echoes of past events, but are told theologically. For example, many Bible scholars are of the opinion that the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis are a unique literature with a sophisticated literary structure, presenting several important spiritual themes. Genesis chapters one through eleven appear to be theological commentary, partly symbolic, recounting the history, concepts, and stories of the time. Old Testament authors were not historians in the modern sense of the word. Most important to them were the spiritual principles underlying historical events. It is as if these authors were painting portraits while New testament authors were trying to take photographs. Brush stroke by brush stroke, or pixel by pixel, information that God wanted humanity to know is recorded in his book.

Hermeneutical Toolkit

In a very real sense, the Bible is an anthology with the Holy Spirit as its editor. Because many literary devices are employed in the Bible’s sixty-six books, accurate hermeneutics requires a variety of hermeneutical tools and the expertise to know which tool works best with which type of literature. Interpreters need to analyze a document before attempting to interpret it. The Bible is replete with numerous documents, authors and esoteric names, places, and challenging concepts. All of this makes it critically important to analyze each document in terms of its literary dimensions, theological teachings, historical and cultural features before moving on to interpretation. The most accurate interpretations are not literal but literary. The opening chapter of Genesis is structured thematically. Two sets of three days, where the first set of days describes the creation of realms and the second set describes the filling of those realms. The opening chapter of the Bible declares God’s sovereignty, wisdom, and goodness. It sets out the sabbath as a pattern for human life. And, as wehave seen, it also counters ancient Near Eastern creation myths.

The Framework Hypothesis

The first chapter of Genesis is not primarily a chronological account but a literary or poetic framework designed to convey theological truths about God and his creation. Genesis chapter 1 appears to be the ritual commemoration of the creation event placed into the context of sabbath observance. It is not a scientific or historical record, asit would be if it was written today. It is a theological or topical explanation of creation.

The Framework Hypothesis states that the creation account, with its sequence of daysand emphasis on the sabbath, is in fact a literary framework for a narrative in which, after the “work” of creation, God takes his place on his throne overseeing the cosmos.Humanity is given a co-regent role, responsible for the stewardship of the earth. Thus,the details — the days, the garden, the serpent, the tree — are symbolic representations of deeper spiritual truths.

Inerrancy

Inerrancy is a critical evangelical doctrine — the belief that the Bible is without error in everything it deals with, including statements about the natural realm. Many evangelicals are of the opinion that should a discrepancy arise between the Bible and science, science must be in the wrong. 

Evangelical orthodoxy rejects the higher critical method, a system of Bible interpretation that originated in Germany in the 19th century. The higher critical method (or higher criticism for short) applies critical, academic and other secular scholarly methods to the study of the Bible, treating it much like any other ancient text. Higher criticism is an interpretive paradigm that discounts the miraculous and questions the historicity of scriptural accounts.

This said, a growing number of evangelical scholars argue that inerrancy is a philosophical category that has passed its “best before” date. They contend that the doctrine of inerrancy is not drawn out of the scriptures but imposed from without, alien to scripture’s nature and intent. A better word for inerrancy, they claim, is “trustworthiness” or “integrity.”

Conclusion

Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560), mathematician, Lutheran theologian and associate of Martin Luther, assembled a group of scholars at the University of Wittenberg – a group which came to be known as the Wittenberg Circle. Group members included mathematician Georg Joachim Rheticus (1514-1574) and astronomical educator Erasmus Reinhold (1511-1553). Melanchthon was a contemporary of Copernicus. Melanchthon argued that Copernican heliocentrism contradicted the plain words of scriptures such as Psalm93:1: “The world also is established, that it cannot be moved.” 

Copernicus put theologians on the horns of a dilemma. Was he correct and the traditional hermeneutic in error? While Melanchthon and Luther said no, the Circle scholars said yes. Eventually, the traditional hermeneutic was updated. And the church moved on.

This group of scholars shows us a non-destructive way to deal with scientificchallenges to traditional doctrines. That kind of gracious forbearance is sorely needed in the church today.

Further Reading

For those of you who are interested in reading further, below are some of the sources I drew upon for this post:

Dennis Danielson, The First Copernican: Georg Joachim Rheticus and the Rise of the Copernican Revolution.

Ted Davis, “Science and the Bible: The Framework View.”

James K. Hoffmeier, Gordon John Wenham, and Kenton Sparks, Genesis: History, Fiction, or Neither?: Three Views on the Bible’s Earliest Chapters.

Dennis Lamoureux, The Bible and Ancient Science: Principles of Interpretation.

Tremper Longman III and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate.

John H. Walton, “Reading Genesis 1 through Ancient (not Modern) Eyes.”

Robert S. Westman, “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory.”  

Editor’s Note: This post is also available on Academia.edu.